Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 12:42:19 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org,
	"Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com>,
	Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: allow changing autovacuum_max_workers without restarting
Message-ID: <aBEPe-OHYbnNezTM@nathan>
References: <1359669.1736206603@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <Z3yVFfKG_RAh8FgP@nathan>
 <1386858.1736220547@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <Z31jI10tLLd6thfu@nathan>
 <de722583-4ba4-4063-bc41-e20684978116@eisentraut.org>
 <713236.1745846094@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <aA-TlhU2ZoBBAqc-@nathan>
 <15005c8c-7676-43b7-a440-787b101cfdf5@eisentraut.org>
 <1050120.1745947158@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <1052019.1745947915@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1052019.1745947915@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aBEPe-OHYbnNezTM%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 01:31:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Andres seemed lukewarm about reverting 38da05346 or 6d0154196, so
>> I left it be for the moment.  But I still feel the argument is good
>> that "these will do little except confuse future hackers".  Barring
>> objection, I'll go revert them.
> 
> Actually ... on looking again at 6d0154196 ("Lower default value of
> autovacuum_worker_slots in initdb as needed"), it doesn't look that
> silly.  If we're unable to allocate max_connections = 100, turning
> it down while still insisting on 16 AV worker slots doesn't seem
> terribly sane.  Maybe we'd choose a formula other than
> "(max_connections / 6)" if we were doing it afresh, but not scaling
> autovacuum_worker_slots at all doesn't seem like the best answer.

Fair point.

> So now I'm inclined to leave that one alone.  I'd still revert
> 38da05346, which means the comment added by 6d0154196 needs some minor
> adjustments.  But I think we can stick with the "(max_connections /
> 6)" formula --- it will produce 3 with trial_conns = 20, but that's
> enough.

Yup, as long as the lowest possible default is >= the default for
autovacuum_max_workers (3), we're good.

-- 
nathan